8 ms·

It's opt-out because if it were opt-in, far fewer people would benefit from it. The Firefox design team conducted user research experiments, and found that a s

• monochromatic 11y ago
  Or Mozilla could implement something similar but not shady.
  • azakai 11y ago
    I don't see how it's shady. It's quite similar to other browser integrations. For example, Chrome integrates with Google services like Google Translate. All modern browsers do some amount of by-default enabled extra services. Of course, Search is the most familiar such service (google.com, bing, yahoo, etc.). Firefox is, has always been, and always will be, open source. The Mozilla server side is similarly also open source. But Mozilla is quite small compared to Google and Microsoft, and so must partner with external parties for things like Search and Pocket.
    • throwaway2048 11y ago
      its shady because its promoting a closed source, for profit entity that has control over user's browsing data.
      • azakai 11y ago
        This is similar to integrating with a search provider, which all browsers do, for better or for worse. And all search providers are closed source and for-profit: Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu, etc.
        • throwaway2048 11y ago
          however the precidence of selecting a closed source search provider already exists and is a strong expectation (this was something championed largely by firefox to begin with, as an interesting sidepoint) There is no expectation of an integrated closed source "cloud reader" and attempts to paint this like "aww gee shucks it would be great it we could do something about this but thats just the way they world is" come off as extremely disingenious, especially as the mobile version of firefox had this feature baked in with no reliance on any third party at all.
    • ObviousScience 11y ago
      > It's quite similar to other browser integrations. "Online advertisements with active content aren't shady, almost all networks use them!" Except for course, what you said it's identical are a notoriously shady group of activities, which has led to much abuse my market leaders at various times (Google, Microsoft), and we see no difference here. For that matter, neither do you. I get that Firefox benefits from shipping the integration, but you haven't provided any good technical reasons for it not being fundamentally a shift in the way you do business and kind of exploitative. Holding up a bunch of famous exploitations as "me too!"ing is tonedeafly missing the complaint.
      • azakai 11y ago
        Maybe I am not following you. Are you saying that browser integrations with google, bing, etc. are all shady?
        • ObviousScience 11y ago
          Historically, the binary blobs provided as "browser integrations" are both major attack vectors and used by market leaders to exfiltrate inappropriate data under the aegis of "they didn't opt-out of our totally optional service!". So yes, the market is fundamentally shady for "browser integrations".
          • azakai 11y ago
            Ok, I think I understand your objection now. I can sympathize with your position - browsers would be purer without such integrations. It would be a better world. I do think, however, that to compete with other browsers, such integration is necessary. If Firefox doesn't integrate with search, users will not find it useful, because they are so used to using google.com and so forth. So I agree browsers would be better with no such integrations. It's a necessary, sometimes painful compromise.
            • ObviousScience 11y ago
              > If Firefox doesn't integrate with search, users will not find it useful, because they are so used to using google.com and so forth. This is a particularly weak case, because what's really needed for this feature at the browser level is an API for search providers, backed by several plugins which take advantage of the feature and offer various providers. However, that's not what Firefox did here, as far as anyone can tell. Why not? No technical reason has been provided, and the replies have been so completely off topic as to cause a long debate thread over that very reasonable concern. Firefox tightly coupled a technology to their platform rather than providing a service API and plugins, and we have no understanding of why a group committed to openness would make such a fundamentally close source move. Historically speaking, the reasons groups do that is malice.
    • frankacter 11y ago
      Your search comparison is a good one. The bundled search providers are installed as removable. If Pocket was distributed in this manner (as an extension that was enabled by default, but removable via standard UI) there would probably be less of an uproar.
    • frozenport 11y ago
      >>Chrome integrates with Google services This is precisely why I don't use Chrome! I like Google search but I don't like how Chrome keeps me logged into their services.
      • Filligree 11y ago
        Um, no. Chrome prompts you to login, and uses the same login for your browsing session and the browser, but if you don't log in then you won't be logged in. What are you asking for, exactly? That the browser should force you to login twice?
        • TheLoneWolfling 11y ago
          No. What I am asking for (although note I am not the author of the grandparent comment) is to be able to be logged into Chrome without being logged into a browsing session if I so choose. And as far as I know there currently is no way to do so. It's nowhere near my only problem with Chrome, but it's one of the big ones.
        • glitchdout 11y ago
          I think TheLoneWolfling explained it well, but I'll give you an example: I want to be logged in in Chrome so that my bookmarks sync between devices. But I want to be logged out of my Google session so that my searches aren't tied to my Google account. On Mobile Chrome, if you log into Chrome, you log into your Google account. There's no way to separate the two.
• foiboitoi 11y ago
  That still doesn't explain why firefox has to be marketing for the Read it Later company. Why even bother having extensions if Mozilla going to pick and choose for you?
  • pmontra 11y ago
    My first reaction was that Read it Later is paying Mozilla for that tight integration but it's not true. Check this https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla_is_not_benefiting_from_the_pocket/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla... "this has absolutely nothing to do with money. We're shipping Pocket because we love their product, and so do our users. Pocket is, by very far, the most popular reading-list add-on used with Firefox." Apparently they went too far: it's the most popular extension of that kind among people that care about reading lists (hardly the majority I think) and it's being hated by everybody that don't tolerate imposed choices. No good can come for Firefox and Pocket from this. If I were Pocket I'd ask Mozilla to unbundle the code into an extension as soon as possible because this is starting to be a PR backslash.
    • vacri 11y ago
      They had a win with the Hello chat stuff, which is backed by Telefonica. It's understandable that they might have tried another item in the same vein (regardless of underlying good v bad motiviation).
    • IshKebab 11y ago
      I'm not sure that is a denial. "[Us including pocket] has nothing to do with money." Could also mean "We like pocket enough to include it, but they are also paying us."
• JadeNB 11y ago
  Wouldn't "decide on first run" (i.e., the user is queried if, say, `browser.pocket.firstRun` is set to `true`) address both issues (of users who don't want to be opted in automatically, and of users who wouldn't discover it if it were opt-in only)?
  • azakai 11y ago
    I'm afraid not, because for the average user, who understands very little about software, asking them "do you want [complex new feature]?" is almost always going to get a "no". And even if it isn't an actually complex new feature, it sounds that way to them. It's true that this seems perhaps a little silly to people like us. We might prefer this to be opt-in. But we are a rare type of user. Studies show the best decision here is to bundle it by default.
    • JadeNB 11y ago
      > Studies show the best decision here is to bundle it by default. I believe that there are meanings of 'best' for which this is true, but they aren't, I think, necessarily the right ones. In this case, it seems like 'best' is "best for widespread adoption of Pocket". OK, so let's buy that widespread adoption of Pocket is a good goal because more users like it than don't. I'm sure there are lots of add-ons with this property, but we don't add them all on—so what is so special about this one, beyond just that it tested well, and moreover what is so fundamental about it that it has to be integrated at the browser, rather than extension, level?
      • azakai 11y ago
        This might also be good for Pocket, but I don't think that had anything to do with Firefox's decision. Why would it?
        • JadeNB 11y ago
          I think that I was unclear. When I said "best for widespread adoption of Pocket", I meant just that: Mozilla have decided, after gathering data, that Pocket is a service that is good for users, and they want as many people as possible to use it. I did not mean to suggest that this was an attempt by Mozilla to promote Pocket for Pocket's sake.
• throwaway2048 11y ago
  how many non-techies are ever even going to push that button and use it? I'd bet single digit percentages.
  • rockdoe 11y ago
    Just like most features, right. There's actually a tour of it if you do a fresh update on a release build, IIRC.
• omouse 11y ago
  This. It's like everyone wants Firefox to look like version 1. Seriously guys, there are great features like reader mode which people don't know about. There's a sync mode that people apparently aren't using (I know about it and even I haven't set it u, but I do have Pocket installed) The Firefox design team needs to test these things out. If y'all don't like it stick to Iceweasel or some other fork. Just don't expect much innovation from the forks.
• frozenport 11y ago
  >>hat a significant amount of people like the feature So what? Consider this argument: 80% like a feature 20% don't. You implement it, now 20% of the people aren't happy. Next feature is also 80%/20%, now between 36-20% aren't happy. Keep doing this and you will alienate most of your user base. Did anybody actually want this feature? What percentage was that?
  • rockdoe 11y ago
    You can also never implement anything and then suddenly you have no more users because the competition has all the features. I'm pretty sure that was Mozilla's experience until they switched to rapid release.
• lemevi 11y ago
  With that logic they could add the Ask Toolbar and make it opt-out too because otherwise far fewer people would benefit from it. Clearly adding pocket wasn't in the interest of users, but only Mozilla's. I doubt adding pocket by default into Firefox was even a thing anyone asked for. And why Pocket? Maybe some Firefox users use Instapaper, and they had no say in the choice of Pocket.
• vultour 11y ago
  You're spewing so much PR bullshit in this thread it's fucking ubelievable. Why exactly a useless thing like this? Why aren't other, way more useful addons like AdBlock in by default? I tell you why - because you, and your friends in the "research" department are being paid for this.